Hi, Dan--

Sherman rewrote the rules of war to include civilian and commercial targets, knowing that the way to defeat an army is to tear its civilian heart out. This is generally agreed to be the beginning of modern warfare.

Sherman's revolutionary approach to warfare would seem to be included in the definition of terrorism you have provided. From contemporary records, one can conclude the South was terrorized. However, the bombing of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut on October 23, 1983, would not be considered a terrorist action under that definition because the target was military, unless terrorists are defined by some other criteria than their chosen targets, such as who they oppose.

The difference between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" can be manipulated depending on which side of the political struggle one is. The British had no trouble defining the people we call Patriots as traitors and insurrectionists (the word "terrorist" not having come into common usage yet), until the Patriots won.

I suggest that terrorists are groups that engage in organized violent behavior with specific non-defensive political aims acting without direct state affiliation, though not necessarily without state sponsorship. (In contrast, organized crime engages in organized violent behavior with specific economic aims, i.e., to make its leaders wealthy, completely without state affiliation, but often with a certain peculiar sense of patriotism, as in "This is my golden goose -- hands off, buddy!") I also suggest that the US government has funded armed groups whom their victims would have no trouble calling terrorists, because they have been terrorized by these groups, and that the US government had better cut it out if the rules of warfare as defined in our own Civil War are to be changed to allow a more thorough prosecution of the current campaign.

Regards--
Mary Anne